Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Biological Research For Nursing
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, L. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smith, L. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Temperature Measurement in Critical Care Adults: A Comparison of Thermometry and Measurement Routes

Linda S. Smith, MS, DSN, RN

Oregon Health & Science University, Klamath Falls, drlsmith{at}direcway.com

Purpose. To describe within- and between-subject mean differences between and among temperature sites (oral, axilla, PA) and instruments.

Methods. A convenience sample (N = 35) of volunteering, adult (18 years), 1st-day postcardiac surgery inpatients was obtained. Temperature-sensing instruments included Geratherm DataTherm and SolarTherm, and Abbott Opticath fiber optic PA catheters. For 21 min, simultaneous temperature readings (°C) at 4 temperature sites with 3 thermometry devices were monitored.

Results. Mean difference at 21 min PA and between DataTherm axilla and PA = 0.72°C (SD 0.30); between PA and SolarTherm oral = 0.62°C (SD 0.34); and between PA and SolarTherm axilla = 0.46°C (SD 0.16). Temperature levels were not a factor relative to difference scores between study and reference devices.

Conclusions. Both test devices, SolarTherm (an intermittent-use device) and DataTherm (a temperature-monitoring device), performed well, and correlated strongly with PA temperature assesments.

Key Words: temperature • thermometry • clinical monitoring • critical care • DataTherm • SolarTherm • mercury-free

Biological Research For Nursing, Vol. 6, No. 2, 117-125 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1099800404268917
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Crit Care NurseHome page
E. Bridges and K. Thomas
Noninvasive Measurement of Body Temperature in Critically Ill Patients
Crit. Care Nurse, June 1, 2009; 29(3): 94 - 97.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Crit CareHome page
L. Lawson, E. J. Bridges, I. Ballou, R. Eraker, S. Greco, J. Shively, and V. Sochulak
Accuracy and Precision of Noninvasive Temperature Measurement in Adult Intensive Care Patients
Am. J. Crit. Care., September 1, 2007; 16(5): 485 - 496.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Biol Res NursHome page
V. D. Hooper and J. O. Andrews
Accuracy of noninvasive core temperature measurement in acutely ill adults: the state of the science.
Biol Res Nurs, July 1, 2006; 8(1): 24 - 34.
[Abstract] [PDF]